http://agora.blogsome.com/2006/03/17/al-asadi-its-not-my-prophet-in-those-cartoons/

Found this blog via ‘Freedom for Egyptians’:
http://freedomforegyptians.blogspot.com/2006/03/yemens-mohammed-al-asadi-faces-death.html

The Guardian has the following information:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoonprotests/story/0,,1707576,00.html?gusr

It turns out that the protesters are basically the “children,” if you will, of cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed. The same firebrand Lebanese cleric who frequently praised the 9/11 hijackers and attacked Western culture even as he lived for many years off the British welfare system. When he took a trip to Lebanon he was refused entry back into the country by the United Kingdom.

Essentially, it appears as though his organization has be reconstituted.

But that’s OK.

You seem like a nice enough person and I don’t want this to turn into a complete flame fest.

Let me say, first of all, that I am no big supporter of the Bush administration’s policies on every issue. Furthermore, I recognize that all countries, the United States included, are hypocritical on certain issues and at certain times. (Leaders of nations are even more hypocritical on even more issues, more of the time. Go figure!)

However, I do support most efforts that have as their goal (or even just as their presumed outcome) the spread of fundamental freedoms (such as ‘freedom of speech’) and human rights. I see Iraq as one of these. I am aware that people such as yourself are skeptical about the motives. The only thing I think will change your mind is a positive final outcome - which will take years to materialize and won’t be easily achieved.

As far as most of these countries being our allies in the Middle East, what can I say? They are frequently duplicitous (Saudi Arabia, for example) and all are undemocratic. I want a better future for people in the Middle East. If wanting that is imperialism then so be it.

The people I look to for making the needed changes in the Middle East are people like the following blogger:

http://bigpharaoh.blogspot.com/

as well as:

http://freedomforegyptians.blogspot.com/
http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/

(As you can see, I am really impressed by the common sense and wit of many of these Egyptian bloggers. )

Furthermore, in regards to public knowledge of (and subsequent government action on) the conflict in Darfur is to a large extent an outgrowth of, somewhat ironically, the Christian community in the United States. Christians in the U.S. were the first to discuss the enslavement of black Christians and animists in the Southern Sudan and the first in the U.S. to really publicize the conflict in Darfur. About the time the Darfur issue was really picked up in the media, there were news stories running in the mass media for at least a year about the problems in southern Sudan. Southern Sudan today would probably be the focus of America’s attention in that country if not for the fact that Khartoum and the South have made efforts at resolving the conflict and violence has subsided significantly. About the time this was happening, however, Darfur came up. No, I don’t think it has anything to do with oil. The United States would drop Sudan economically in a heartbeat if it felt appropriate. Economically, they just don’t matter that much.

One of the problems with our messages back and forth to each other is that we are bringing up so many issues and discussing so many disagreements and predicaments that it is hard to respond adequately to each on individually.

I am going to drop it after this message. Feel free to respond on this thread to anything I have just said. However, I won’t respond back. It is time to move on. Thanks for the debate Enkidu.

Seriously. You don’t think that any Arab leader or diplomat ever shook hands with Saddam?

Here is Koizumi and Kim Jong shakings hands:

http://ch.kitaguni.tv/u/2148/2004/05

I guess that means Koizumi completely approves of Kim Jong, right? I’m sure Koizumi is all for a nuclear-armed North Korea.

As far as US-Iraqi relations during the 80’s are concerned, yes, the United States sided with Iraq rather than Iran in the war between the two countries. Should we have sided with Iran instead? Is that your point? It was one of those ‘dumb’ or ‘dumber’ choices that had to be made.

As far as Rwanda goes, I didn’t see any Arab nation(s) jumping in to do anything. Funny how that is, huh? Arabs never seem to get involved in preventing human rights abuses or serious conflicts. Arab nations neither acted unilaterally in Rwanda, nor in a coalition, nor took any action at the UN. Yes, the American government was wary about sending its troops in after the events of Somalia. Somalia - another conflict that Arabs didn’t bother taking any action on. How about Bosnia-Herzogovina or Kosovo? Where was the Arab world on these ? Yes, American morals were at the presidential ranch on these issues too, I suppose. Arab morals were probably somewhere in the harem, right?

There you go! Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo - all conflicts in which Muslim people were suffering that US stepped in to try and help people.

3 Muslim countries (or would-be countries) that were in trouble / 0 Muslim countries responding to the trouble. Just as Muslims today are taking the lead on stopping Khartoum from persecuting the Muslim people of Darfur. Keep up the good work! We could learn a lot from the Muslim world.

not that the US ever learns from its past blunders- see Uzbekistan! (same scenario, same hypocricy, new name though!)

‘TERRIFIED’ of 9/11?
Please, I’m not terrifed of 9/11, I’m just tired of Muslims’ excuses and hypocrisy.

“MORALS? PLEASE! When you will have the moral integrity to take the responsibility for the lies, crimes, and corruption (committed in your name and with your evident approval) in the name of a self-serving, bigotted â??freedomâ?? (a misnomer if ever one existed) then, and only then will you be in a position to meaningfully toss the word (MORAL) about with such confidence.”

I don’t know what you’re exactly talking about. Typical claptrap about the war in Iraq possibly? By the way, in America, we don’t consider freedom a ‘misnomer.’

“when the resulting suffering and horror will inspire in you a comparable revulsion to that that the suicide bombers inspire, then you will appear more as a thoughtful, MORAL human being”

Once again, I told you I don’t consider the tragic deaths of innocent civilians that sometimes occur in military operations to be equivalent to the targeted annihilation of civilians by terrorists. In fact, it is largely because terrorists choose to disguise themselves as civilians and hide amongst civilians that means that military operations to root out terrorists inevitably result in civilian deaths.

For a good example of the kind of moral relativism Arabs like to engage in, check out this site and watch some videos:

http://furtheradventuresofindigored.blogspot.com/2006/01/saddams-home-movies-of-torture.html

The incredibly cruel tortures that Saddam inflicted on his population were largely ignored by Arabs when they were occurring and have now seemingly been forgotten by the greater Arab world; meanwhile Arabs just can’t seem to forgot the ‘fraternity hazing’ style tortures inflicted on inmates at Abu Ghraib by a few delinquent military personel who (unlike Saddam’s torturers) were sent to prison.

“Until then you will no doubt continue to hide nervously in your starred-and-striped bubble with the hope that your threats, your highly-diminished world influence,”

High-diminishing world influence? Well, at least its not another scurrilous accusation of colonialism or imperialism.

“your oh-so advanced weaponry and, of course, the nukes you have stocked in your backyard (so high that they actually block your view)”

Yeah, actually our weaponry is pretty advanced. However, I must inform you, there are no nukes in my backyard just my Doberman Pinscher. At least last I checked!”

“America is ALREADY bogged down and humiliated in tiny, helpless Irak- you have not foreseen that in your worse-scenario predictions)”

A look at casualty figures and wartime expenditures as a portion of GDP reveals the following:

Revolutionary War: 4,435 deaths
War of 1812: 2,260 deaths
Mexican War: 13,283 deaths
Civil War: 364,511 deaths
Spanish-American War: 2,446 deaths
World War I: 116,516 deaths
World War II: 405,399 deaths
Korean War: 36,576 deaths
Vietnam War: 58,209 deaths
First Gulf War: 382 deaths

When you take into account that early wars like the War of 1812, Revolutionary War, and the Spanish-American war were fought when the U.S. population was a tiny fraction of today’s population, the war in Iraq is one of the least bloody in our history.

As for cost, look at this information:
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_buzzcharts/buzzcharts200601230854.asp

Sorry, the facts just don’t indicate what you would like them to.

Of course, our casualty figures would be even lower if we engaged in the sort of scorched earth policy that would indiscriminately kill civilians along with terrorist combatants. You know, like Syria did the Hama massacre:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_Massacre

Unlike terrorists and rogue regimes though, the US tries to minimize civilian casualties to whatever extent is possible. I’m sorry you don’t understand the difference.

“and not something as visceral as RACISM”

Oh no! Not that word ‘racism’ again! Come on, already!

“India & Pakistan (especially Pakistan) will no longer have the need to be your allies, South-America continues down its path of defiance to your hegemony and greed, and who knows, your arch-enemy Iran would also turn nuclear and assume fully its designated place on your â??axis of evilâ??”

India and Pakistan already have the bomb but we have reasonably good relations with both countries. There is more than just having nuclear weapons to drive countries apart. India and Pakistan are both countries that benefit from trade with the U.S. As far as Iran goes, they are already part of the ‘axis of evil’ (or, at least, the ‘axis of truly demented nations’ juding by the likes
of Ahmadinejad).

South-America continues down its path of defiance to your hegemony and greed,”

I think your referring to the likes of Hugo Chavez and Co. right? South (and Central) America has a long history of producing demagogues on both the left and the right. Nothing new in that ballpark. So they’re swinging to the left currently. Who cares?

“hence, something like colonialism”

Come on! Not that word ‘colonialism’ again!

“It is perhaps time that we stopped being surprised by a routine phenomenon: the affirmation of Islamic identity as the dominant form of national self-assertion in developing societies whose citizens hold major grievances against the quality of their own statehood and governance, as well as against Western and Israeli policies.”

Well, anybody who is still surprised with the routine phenomenon of chaos, murder and madness in the name of Islam should certainly stop being surprised.

Anybody who is surprised by the excuses and sugarcoating offered up for this behavior such as ‘the affirmation of Islamic identity,’ ‘national self-assertion in developing societies’ shouldn’t be surprised either.

Nor should anybody be surprised by the usual bogeymen and scapegoats being trotted out for Arab misbehavior, namely, ‘Western and Israeli policies.’ Once again, we see a lack of morals and a failure to take any sort of real responsibility for people’s own behavior. No surprise there either.

This article then goes on to talk about colonialism and so forth . . . yawn . . . ‘Colonialism’, like ‘racism,’ is 9 out of 10 times a meaningless term when bantied about by Islamic apologists. It is simply an insult like calling somebody you don’t like an ‘idiot’ only it is applied to real or perceived policies rather than people.

The major form of true colonialism we see today in regards to Muslims is their infiltration into the Western World and exploiting its freedoms and economic benefits while not making much progress assimilating into their host nations. Sounds very similar to traditional colonialism to me.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4687996.stm

Nonsense, one of my best friends is the daughter of a contractor who worked over in Saudi Arabia. Yes, they obviously make good money otherwise they wouldn’t come. Get away with murder! You’ve got to be kidding me. There is hardly anything to do in Saudi Arabia as a westerner, most of the them stay put in their compounds, isolated from the rest of the country excepting a few colleagues they might work with and the occasional trip, if they are within proximity of it, to the more tolerant nation of Bahrain to enjoy a little bit of the night life. I don’t consider the fact that westerners may occasional be caught with a little alcohol and only expelled instead of whipped or executed to be exactly getting away with murder. I am sorry Saudi Arabia is so harsh with its own citizens. The only reason it is not as harsh with non-citizens is the need for skilled labor and the desire not to scare that labor away from the country in the first place.
By the way, contractors work for their money, uneducated immigrants from say, for instance, North Africa who have come to a country like France are frequently on the welfare rolls being unproductive and contributing nothing to their host society other than having lots of children who likewise contribute nothing to their societies. I know, I know, you’ll say it is all due to racism. That explains why some non-white ethnic communities, for instance, the Vietnamese community, in France are relatively successful, right?

As far as fundamental freedoms, such as religious freedoms, in Saudi Arabia? Well, lets just say there aren’t exactly a lot of state-sponsored churches over there . . .

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41731.htm
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51609.htm

Anyone with any knowledge of the arab (let alone the muslim) world (real knowledge not second-hand CNN-sourced knowledge) would agree that it is an immensely varied world, and covers a very wide spectrum of values and practices.

Something, it seems, the Americans have difficulty grasping, where the pursuit of the mighty buck has a homogenizing effect on the ethnically heterogeonous US.

Yeah, we shouldn’t stereotype the Arab or Muslim world, lets stereotype those greedy, materialistic Americans instead.

In any case, in view of the diversity and complexity of our region and its history this reductionist generalization of infidels (you) vs fundamnetalists (us) is so unrepresentative as it is biased. It leaves so little room for real communication.

Yeah, no kidding. The Muslim world needs to stop generalizing everything. Throughout this whole Danish cartoon controversy, we’ve seen nothing but the generalizations of the Islamic world. After all, it is not the fault of a few newspapers that these cartoons were printed, it is the fault of all of Europe, right? No, no, I mean it is the fault of the entire Western world, right? No? No! I mean it is the fault of the entire ‘kafir’ world! That’’s it! While we burn embassies, then, lets attack a Lebanese Christian church. Damn kafirs!

When a leading Iranian newspaper publishes Holocaust cartoons, as they are reportedly planning on doing, should we hold all the Muslim world responsible? What happens if certain papers in the Arab world reprint these Holocaust cartoons? Should the entire Arab world be labelled a bunch of Holocaust deniers if they do?

I guarantee that the west will do a better job looking beyond the actions of a few individuals we disagree with than the Muslim world has been able to do with these Mohammad cartoons.

We could learn a lot about tolerance from Muslims, the Danish imam who originally publicized the offending cartoons to the Muslim world, clearly demonstrated an ability to move beyond generalizing the Danes in the letter he wrote to his Arab colleagues, read it for yourself:

http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/files/danish_letter.pdf

The rise of any form of fundamentalism has always been a REACTION to humiliation, and inequity, to the feeling of impotence and loss of hope, something that experts on the subject unanimously agree upon.

I suppose we can say the any form of movement is a reaction to something. Nazi Germany was ‘reaction’ to defeat in World War I and the Treaty of Versaille, right? Does it make it any less distasteful? Who cares?

How can you so confidently generalize regarding OUR aspirations? Is it not more realistic to assume that they (the aspirations) might just be no different than your own (as we all share the same basic human needs, that is, if your are able to consider us as equally human!)? These may be as simple as improving our lives, making progress, taking full benefit of the riches and resources that nature has endowed our lands (oil, natural gas, minearals, etc) Has it occurred to you that perhaps we aspire to form trade ties which are more fair and equitable for us? That our own interests and not those of the mighty US may be our priority? That we would like our children to grow up in a better world, with reduced infant mortality, and disease, and without your cluster bombs!!! I assure you that these ARE amongst our most basic preoccupations, as they are everywhere else..

I told you about the aspirations I see, not necessarily those of the entire Muslim world. I wish the best of luck to you in pursuing any peaceful goals you may have. I hope you do improve your lives, make progress, seek your own interests and seek to find equitable trading ties, have less infant mortality and disease. I hope your children grow up in a better and more beautiful world.

By the way, if you don’t want MY cluster bombs then YOU need to stop flying airplanes into OUR buildings. OK? Good luck to you. I mean it. ;>)

I could go on, but in the interest of not having progressively longer and longer posts, I am going to stop here. Let me just conclude: I’m tired of hearing people blame everything on racism and colonialism; I am 1/4-blood Cherokee, some of my ancestors came from a rather impoverished hardscrabble background in eastern Oklahoma; what they had that so many of these bitchy, whiny Muslim immigrants with an ‘entitlement mentality’ don’t seem to possess are a set of something called morals.

How can you so confidently generalize regarding OUR aspirations? Is it not more realistic to assume that they (the aspirations) might just be no different than your own (as we all share the same basic human needs, that is, if your are able to consider us as equally human!)? These may be as simple as improving our lives, making progress, taking full benefit of the riches and resources that nature has endowed our lands (oil, natural gas, minearals, etc) Has it occurred to you that perhaps we aspire to form trade ties which are more fair and equitable for us? That our own interests and not those of the mighty US may be our priority? That we would like our children to grow up in a better world, with reduced infant mortality, and disease, and without your cluster bombs!!! I assure you that these ARE amongst our most basic preoccupations, as they are everywhere else..
But where do we see this in your ‘free’ media? Even what you refer to as the ‘apologetics’ on our behalf reek an offensive superiority and abound with misunderstandings. The truly sad thing is that you have inadvertently, yes, you!, glorified the extremists and continue to do so, as only they get your attention, and only they seem to get any concrete results out of their campaigns. And that is what I referred to when I said that they have understood the WEAPON that you yourself have created. It is your media and your arrogance that stifled and continue to stifle the ‘moderate’ voices. But it goes deeper than that. The US is willing to invest billions in peacefully ‘democratizing’ those nations it views as of superior, civilized races (the former soviet republics, for example) but at the same time it spends trillions in annhilating arab and muslim countries. The contrast is so disturbing as it betrays that truth behind your hypocritical messages of equality(I did mention ALIENATING the masses, didn’t I?
You say,
‘Muslim immigrants regarding western society to know the degree to which many of them have a condescending and contemptuous attitude towards Europeans and Americans’.
Migration has been the outcome of the post-colonial catastrophes that these societies have yet to come out of, and if you think that the morsels that your ‘lavish’ welfare systems are sufficiant to counter the lack of opportunity and exclusion that these groups are confronted with daily from within their imposed ghettos you are very mistaken. The Europeans are just beginning to come to terms with their deeply flawed, profoundly racist, so-called integration policies, but only as a consequence of the resentment building up out of the glaring inequities. But, once again for you the welfare system seems more than what they ‘deserve’ (I mentioned condescendence! didn’t I?) Luckily they disagree with you on that one, too, as did the afro-americans at the time when they were relegated to the fringe of society and look where they stand today…. But minorities have always grappled with these issues and will always do, it is not hard to understand the simmering resentment that these conditions generate and when people like you choose to condemn instead of understand you don’t have to stretch you imagination to see why they would turn to a ‘condescendant and contemptuous’ attitude that you speak of amongst immigrants. It is an unfortunate trap that MOST minorities who feel excluded and repressed fall into, but you have your own reasons to single out Arabs and Muslims as an instance of that (just take, as an example, North American jewery which can hardly be called ‘repressed’ nowadays and yet they still have not outgrown that same condescendance towards the majorities in their societies)…
For your own knowledge, at school we were taught world history and that includes the vast contributions of the west to the improvement of the world as it stands today. We all hold in great admiration the achievements of certain artists or scientists, men and women of state, regrdless of where they were born. The educated amongst us (and much to your disappointment, they are not a negligible minority in our retrograde societies) speak 2 or more languages! We listen to music just like you do, we watch films just like you do, but in all your oh so shallow and biased coverage of the middle east, you are rarely confronted with what we all have in common! Sure you often come across some American Arabs who are more vehemently American than George W Bush, (but that is also another common migration phenomenon). Let’s me put it directly here, you want reconciliation and understanding, you will definately not achieve that by sending your inexperienced, arrogant, and ignorant military personnel to order us around like your servants (as you are doing in Iraq, for example… I did mention Alienating the masses. And just in case you wanted even more reasons for resentment!)….
And you got to trust me on this one, a very important number of us confronts racism on a constant basis in your so called ‘tolerant’ societies, regardless of our capacities and credentials. There is just no escaping it. It is simply attached to our names, it follows then that your assertion regarding the ‘ hypothetical Raghida Hassan as â??Raghida Hassan, an American who happens to be of the Islamic faithâ?? not as â??just another (potential dangerous) Muslim (no different from Osama)â?? is absolute self-congratulatory rubbish! I would like Ms. Hassan to apply to the same job as John Smith and wish her the best of luck! (I have a feeling that some of the more-American-than-God group I mentioned above will write back with their own incredible success stories- but these individual tales would pale next to the bulk of tales of restrictions and racism, for to dissociate their names from the almost automatic negativity that has come to inhabit America’s conciousness regarding the Arab-Muslim world is simply a delusion (at least as things stand today). Unfortunately, Arabs and Muslims are now vying for that oh so restrictive place that was once reserved for Afro-Americans and Hispanics.

‘The reaction in the United States was completely the opposite of the â??angry rampaging Arabsâ?? we see on television.’
The reaction of the US!!! It was to spy on individuals, to crackdown on charitable organizations (with or without justification), to violate the stipulations of its own much-touted constitution, to imprison, torture and kill, and launch an unjustied revenge war on a small nation that is in all evidence unrelated to 9-11 (simply because the US was certain it could bully it into submission with ease). In light of this it is amazing that you view US reaction as the beacon of restraint! I suppose then that for you the tens of thousands of lives, the destruction of thousands-years-old archeological sites, the annhilation of the infra-structure of a country unrelated to ‘the worst attack you have had on you soil,etc. etc.’ is an exercise in what a restrained response of a superpower may be!!! One brilliant US military personnel put it rather ‘nicely’, and in all seriousness, as he reported from Iraq ‘with the Arabs there is only one way- violence! They understand one language-guns. To get this done we have to Kill them all!’ One can safely assume that you would probably agree with him. The trouble is that you as the Superpower have set the ugliest possible example of ‘extremism’ and therefore you have lost all credibility to even criticize what others may say or do.

Regarding Palestine, let me start by saying that it seems that any discussion on the subjet with an important number of Westerners seems to lead nowhere.
But let me put it this way- It is about this guy sitting in a tank fully-armoured, backed by the most sophisticated weaponry (he’s even got nukes in his backyard, just in case) levelling someone else’s home, aiming in all directions and at the same time whining about being the victim of the little guy throwing a rock!!!
This conflict that was ‘imposed’ on the region by the super power of the time, the UK- not unlike the conflict that the US, the current super power of today has imposed on Iraq with equal colonialistic intentions. Israel is the last relic of the colonialisation of the region after the defeat of the Ottomans, as you probably know…
And believe me the Arab world DOES understand the degree of revulsion that things like suicide bombings cause in the West. It has the same effect on us too (though it seems so hard for you to believe because in your eyes we are once again so de-humanised) but returning to the guy in the tank, when you have such a disproportionatly assymetric conflict what do you expect these people to do in order to be heard? As if any of you would have sat up and listened if they did not resort to such extreme tactics.
You say
‘Westerners simply cannot reconcile the targeted murder of innocent men, women and children with any sort of political cause, no matter how justified’

Pure and total hypocrisy! For you are the masters of disregarding the innocents when you see that it may come in conflict with your own interests (Iraq is the perfect CURRENT example)
And by the way, Palestinians are not doing it solely for Allah, they are demanding (rightfully) the very basic rights that are enshrined in your own constitution- that should not be so difficult for you to understand.
You say,
‘the West tends to have a low tolerance for the sort of moral relativism that Palestinian apologists engage in, such as the equating of an unintentional (and in war, sadly inevitable) death of a civilian during a military operation to the targeted murder of a civilian by a terrorist.’
To call the death of tens of thousands of civilians in your bombing campaigns of cities UNINTENTIONAL is mind-numbing! What did you expect? How did you expect them not to die when you are showering them with hundreds of tons of explosives (not to mention radioactive material)!!! What kind of logic is this? And remember for each single one of your so precious individuals or of your allies individuals you have killed hundreds, thousands!! You have burned a WHOLE city down, for god’s sake, in retaliation for the charred remains of 4 of your mercenaries.

As for Iraq, first of all, the US, in its mad rush to war, did not initially forsee the trillion bucks that this ridiculous adventure will cost you, it follows that the argument of the cost of the war does not refute anything.. Second, Saudi Arabia (regardless of its human rights track record) has always been a close regional ally to the US so the idea of attacking it would seem rather stupid, to say the least. The fact that the world trade centre hijackers were predominantly Saudis and the Saudis got away with it would simply confirm the strong alliance between US and the Saudi monarchy. It is interesting how in your paragraph entitled Iraq, you refute non-existant arguments about invading one of your major regional allies but offer nothing plausible with regards the actual invasion, occupation and the destruction of Iraq- Oil, yes oil! Iran? The planned military bases in Iraq for regional domination! Your number one regional ally, Israel! With all the information available on the subject one would’ve expected a little more than the tired ‘Saddam’s vile regime’ (which as you should know was empowered by The US not so long ago to fight its own war with Iran) but you prefer to skim over the subject in your negation to accept any responsibilty for the role that your vile foreign policies have played in triggering the international backlash of extremism that we are all going through at the moment.

And while we are at it, let’s not forget the role that the US played in the creation of Al-Qaeda (you would safely relegate that into another ‘conspiracy theory’ like everything that does not fit your perfect reductionist schema of ‘the US’s inherent goodness vs the others’ inherent evil!’)
The basic problem is that the US has always been narrow-sighted. It focuses on a particular ‘enemy’ at the time and rashly brings into its fold whoever is available to fight its own foes (Al-Qaeda against the Russians, Saddam Hussein against Iran, and we won’t even tread into your catastrophes in Central and South America!) and you do that regardless of the consequences. Is it not possible that those who opposed your stupid adventure in Iraq have perceived the destabilizing dangers- How that would fuel extremism, which has become an international concern and therefore has affected them as well? But how can Americans admit that someone else may be (even to the slightest degree) ‘right’! It is much easier to live in negation and hide in your tanks and whine about being the victims, and critize your opponants for their supposed greed or cowardice!

‘There are European extremists who would go so far as to expel all Muslims from the continent and American extremists who would like to drop a few hydrogen bombs on Mecca and Medina (and possibly Riyadh and a few other Arab capitals) to send a message to the entire Muslim world about the consequences of terrorism.’

This should serve as an explanation just in case someone is still wondering why the hell Iran wants its own nukes!
and finally,
‘Such people donâ??t get much play in our society.’

If you consider the neo-cons and how their twisted ideology have shaped your recent catastrophic strategies then this statement would seem either false, misinformed or totally dishonest.

Sure, the west is so intolerant. If we were only more like the Muslim world. Give me a break.
I’m tired of this sanctimonious Muslim nonsense. The proof of the pudding is in the eating as the British say. If you’re a Muslim living in France you might attend a taxpayer supported mosque and be living off a lavish social welfare system like so many Muslim immigrants are. If your a westerner going to Saudi Arabia on the other hand . . .

You speak of aspirations of the Arab and Muslim world. Unfortunately, the aspirations we have seen expressed by too many extremists from the Muslim community are those of terrorists who aren’t afraid to openly call for establishing a worldwide caliphate and express a desire to see Sharia law imposed in the western world. They are religious imperialists.

Trust me, I’ve heard enough talk of ‘infidels’ and ‘kafirs’ from the commentary of supposedly ‘moderate’ Muslim immigrants regarding western society to know the degree to which many of them have a condescending and contemptuous attitude towards Europeans and Americans.

Whenever a real or imagined slight against Muslims or Arabs from a Western source occurs there are demonstrations and calls for blood throughout the Islamic world. When the United States was attacked on 9/11, I remember my own mother going to visit the restaurant owned by a Lebanese immigrant to reassure him and his family that they supported them in the event of a massive backlash. As it turned out, the sort of ‘Arab world’ style backlash never materialized. Instead, after 9/11 many new books appeared on my town’s library shelves regarding Islam. There was a surge in the desire of Americans to try and better understand Islam and those who practice it. There were commercials on television with well-known celebrities that tried to send the message that Muslim Americans were patriotic and good people. The reaction in the United States was completely the opposite of the ‘angry rampaging Arabs’ we see on television.

Sorry, I am not a cultural relativist. I don’t believe all cultures are necessarily equal. Some cultures are more technologically advanced, some cultures emphasize the individual over the group more, and some are more religiously and culturally tolerant than others. Some, apparently, are more angry than others . . .

Despite my disagreements with Islam, I am generally proud of my country’s display of tolerance and understanding in the face of the worst attack on our soil since Japan hit us during Pearl Harbor. Americans are generally good at seeing each person as an individual and judging accordingly: seeing a hypothetical Raghida Hassan as ‘Raghida Hassan, an American who happens to be of the Islamic faith’ not as ‘just another (potential dangerous) Muslim (no different from Osama).’ All I’ve seen in this Danish cartoon controversy is to the absurd degree some Muslims like to generalize way out of proportion. It isn’t just a few newspapers causing this cartoon controversy, it is European society! (Lets burn a few embassies.) No wait! It is the entirely secular/Christian world! (Lets attack some Maronite churches while were at it.)

Let’s face it, whatever the history of western imperialism is, many Muslims seem to advocate a sort of cultural imperialism that is incompatible with western values and freedoms.

If you want a particularly harsh assessment of the cartoon controversy, you can take it from an Iraqi student living in the United States:

http://bethnahrain.blogspot.com/

She is far less nice about this whole thing than most native-born Americans are.

how can anyone forget when Palestine, Afghanistan, and Iraq are such daily constant reminders?

Palestine: The Palestinian issue is too complex to get into in a single post. Needless to say, most people in the West find as much if not more fault with the Arabs and Palestinians for this issue as the Israelis. Furthermore, the Arab world doesn’t seem to understand the degree of revulsion that things like suicide bombings cause in the West. Westerners simply cannot reconcile the targeted murder of innocent men, women and children with any sort of political cause, no matter how justified. Some Palestinians may feel their doing it for Allah, but it does not impress people in the West. Finally, the West tends to have a low tolerance for the sort of moral relativism that Palestinian apologists engage in, such as the equating of an unintentional (and in war, sadly inevitable) death of a civilian during a military operation to the targeted murder of a civilian by a terrorist.

Iraq: I’m sure being the type of individual you are, I cannot convince that, while the war may have been launched over a false assumption regarding weapons of mass destruction, it has nothing to do with oil. The idea that the United States will probably spend somewhere around a trillion dollars (and even the most conservative estimates stated the cost of trying to wage war and reconstruct the country would be several hundred billion dollars) on Iraq to save a few cents per gallon on gas at the pump is economically hair-brained. If the war were about oil we could have easily pursued the French approach to the issue, namely, remove the sanctions from Saddam Hussein and just ignore his vile regime to get more oil. It was the nations that had the most to gain economically from Iraq who opposed going to war. Besides, after 9/11, if you were going to invade a country for oil, wouldn’t a more logical candidate be Saudi Arabia? Most of the 9/11 hijackers were from there, there is strong evidence that members of the Saudi royal family were/are in cahoots with al-Qaeda and they have far more oil. Unfortunately, leftists here in the United States and Europe and Muslims cannot be convinced even by the most logical arguments on this issue. They prefer conspiracy theories no matter how inane.

Afghanistan: An even more ridiculous argument. The idea that any country, like the US, that has the military capability to deal with Afghanistan would simple ignore it is absurd considering the murder of 2,680 of its citizens by a criminal who is being harbored by perverse regime. In case you haven’t forgot, the Taliban was given repeated opportunities to turn bin Laden and Co. over to the U.S. to avoid an invasion. They sided with al-Qaeda and paid the price. The United States was given no choice, they simply could not allow al-Qaeda (not to mention the then unaffiliated Zarqawi) to run training camps openly, plan and organize further terrorist attacks and flaunt the United States.

As for the â??damageâ?? that these images of violence cause to their own (the radicalsâ??) â??imageâ?? and cause, it has become evident that no matter what you do that image has always been, and Iâ??m afraid will continue to be, negative (to varying degrees, of course, depending on where you are georaphically, ethnically, culturally, etc.)

Believe me, it does matter. The left and the mass media in Europe and the United States have engaged in a tremendous amount of apologetics, not all of it entirely honest, on behalf of Islam. They have largely succeeded in keeping the image of Islam positive in spite of the numerous terrorist attacks, embassy rioting and threatening displays like we saw in London the other day.

Add to that the fact that West has, rather stupidly one must add, done everything in their means to alienate as much as possible of the masses.

If we followed the suggestions of those who truly hate Islam and the Arab world, you would know it. The West has thankfully not done everything it could to alienate Muslims, not by any stretch of the imagination. There are European extremists who would go so far as to expel all Muslims from the continent and American extremists who would like to drop a few hydrogen bombs on Mecca and Medina (and possibly Riyadh and a few other Arab capitals) to send a message to the entire Muslim world about the consequences of terrorism. Such people don’t get much play in our society. We don’t even hold mass demonstrations burning your flags, attacking your mosques, or lynching Muslims; we don’t ban your religious literature and prevent you from building mosques, etc. Trust me, if the West really wanted to alienate you, it wouldn’t be pretty.

Ya3ni, by the day our image is just getting worse. I wonder what the day is holding for us.

As for the printing of hte cartoons in Jordan, in whatever context they were meant, they would have been banned.The people in charge know when it comes to religion most of hte people lose their minds and not so much of reasoning would be envolved.

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

Apparently the ban on depicting Mohammad hasn’t always been as universal as imagined. Did you know that depicting Mohammad as a young man, prior to his visitation by Gabriel, is still not forbidden by Iranian Shiites?

A very interesting read.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060206/ap_on_re_mi_ea/prophet_drawings

How the Maronites in Lebanon are responsible for Danish cartoons is beyond me. I suppose in the mind of the attackers, they are all ‘Christians’ and, therefore, ‘infidels’ right? These caricatures were an attack on Muslims, not just by a few effete snobbish newspaper staffs in Europe, but by the entire non-Muslim world maybe?

An Italian Catholic priest in Turkey has been shot dead by a teenager who shouted ‘Allah Akbar.’ Police are uncertain about the motive, but given the timing and the fact that Turkey is a relatively religiously tolerant nation, you have to wonder:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/05/AR2006020500879.html

Speaking of Turkey, I wonder what effect this will all have on Turkey’s prospects of joining the EU?

Also, did anyone hear that the Swedish and Chilean embassies were also destroyed during the mayhem in Syria? I’ve heard rumors about this floating around but have been unable to find a source.

I’ve also heard a rumor that the London police will be taking some sort of action against the protesters with the violent signs the other day. I don’t know a good source for this either or what action the police might actually take.

As far as the intention of the publishers/editors, I would like to say yes, it should be taken into account. However, who is to decide the intention of an individual? How can this be put in a legal code? It’s not stringent enough, you can’t measure intention, and it’s too easy to get away with a lot of things that people can argue their intention wasn’t to harm, offend, etc. In this case, however, the editor wrote an editorial condeming the cartoons so his intention was a little clear.

I don’t see why he couldn’t have written it without publishing the cartoons? I agree that people need to be informed, but I doubt that many people in Jordan actually wanted to see them. Also, the timing was pretty bad, people were already angry and burning down embassies, it seems to have been poorly planned. Nevertheless, I think the arrest is wack, and it seems to just be a statement from the government as if to say “see, we’re doing something about it” when in reality they are enjoying this because it takes people’s minds of domestic problems…